Who was better, Calzaghe when he fought Eubank or the one that fought Hopkins???

Calzaghe when he beat Eubank was just seen as a raw puncher.

Calzaghe now can beat fighters in a multitude of ways, he identifies his opponents strengths and takes it away from them.

Calzaghe that beat Eubank hit a lot harder, but Calzaghe of now would find a way to beat Calzaghe of then.

 

I don't know if there is a turning point as such, it's been more an evolution throughout his career.

People, of course, have argued before that his hand problems actually contributed to this by forcing him to rely less on his power.

 

You been reading Irvine Welsh books recently?

 

For me this is simple - when he fought Hopkins. Although he is now older and he doesn't punch with the same ferocity as when he was battering Eubank - he now is a much smarter more experienced boxer. It may have something to do with his hand trouble. He changes and adapts very well to ensure victory. He was probably more exciting when he started his career.

 

Calzaghe looked the very best before he met Hopkins - he looked awesome vs. Kessler. He lost speed, power and accuracy in moving up in weight and still performed better than Taylor, Tarver and Winky vs. Hopkins. The Calzaghe who fought Hopkins (at 168) would definitely beat the green, more offensive Joe who defeated Eubank.

 

The Calzaghe that beat Hopkins is much better. Can you even imagine the Calzaghe that beat Eubank going the distance with Hopkins?

 

jc now would beat the jc that beat eubank

 

Eubanks Calzaghe would crush a 43 year old Hopkins.

 

edit